• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
They haven't really looked at it in depth but are prepared to go along with it for the sake of unity.

Well , for the sake of keeping us in the world globalisation program, yes, I think its highly likely.
 
We have absolutely no idea what happened in Salsibury. None. The only thing we do know is that we are not, and would not be, told anything remotely resembling the truth.

We do not know who any of these people really are.

One thing we do, or should know - if the Russian Secret Services wanted two people dead then two people would be dead.
 
So a number of the things we've been questioning as vague and sketchy at best have now at least been addressed in some part.

Two suspects - Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Although while presumably these are the names on their passports it is not believed that these are their real names. The government claim they are 'agents' of the GRU, but Moscow (perhaps hardly surprisingly) denies all knowledge of them.

The question I'd be asking Russia is, in that case who are they? You let them fly. Somebody let those passports through for them to fly to the UK. Trace them.

We now have (what is presumably) passport photos of them, CCTV footage of their time in the UK, and enough to at least propose a case for their having being involved.

If Moscow is telling the truth, and these are just two random Russian citizens who somehow managed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then so be it.

But UK authorities are now able to construct a plausible sequence of events for the pair.
  • March 2nd they arrive at Gatwick. They stay at the CityStay Hotel in East London.
  • March 3rd they're on CCTV at Salisbury station. It's assumed this trip was a reccie for the following day.
  • They return to London that evening but March 4th they're back in Salisbury, captured on CCTV only streets away from the Skripal residence.
  • An hour later CCTV has them in the town centre heading in the direction of the train station.
  • That evening they are back in London, this time at Heathrow, heading onto a flight to Moscow.
It's certainly a plausible sequence of events. It is now alleged that between points 3 and 4 above they drifted past the Skripal residence sprayed nerve agent on the front door, and left. When the Skripals returned home a while later they came in contact with it, and Novichok began to work its way into their systems.

By the time both suspects were boarding their plane it would probably have been on the news.

The nerve agent itself was dressed up as bottle of Premier Jour Nina Ricci perfume. A small bottle with an applicator, which is presumed to have been used to apply the substance to the door. The bottle, had a modified nozzle, which contained a "significant amount" of Novichok according to Scotland Yard.

It is unknown when or how the bottle was discarded by the pair, and how it got to the next phase of its journey.

Charlie Rowley finds the bottle in a charity bin (we don't know which, where, how...) but thinking his luck is in he pulls it out. He intends to give it to his girlfriend Dawn Sturgess, from nearby Amesbury.

At an unknown point Rowley screws the two parts of the bottle back together, exposing himself unwittingly to a small amount of nerve agent.

On the 30th June the pair are both admitted to hospital. It is assumed that Dawn Sturgess directly applied the substance to her wrists, assuming it (unsurprisingly) to be perfume.

She dies on the 8th July.

Rowley, as we know from above, was discharged on the 20th of July but has since lost his sight in relation to damage done by the nerve agent.

While the Skripals, and Det Sgt Nick Bailey, all recovered after contact with Novichok it is worth remembering that they contacted it most likely from the door of the house, hours after after it was applied.

Charlie Rowley got it on his hands, Dawn Sturgess sprayed it on her wrists, and therefore it is perhaps unsurprising that direct to skin contact in that fashion proved more potent.

But anyway, we do know a lot more details now.

The biggest questions though remain over who these two men actually are and how this came to be. Because proving them to be bonafide foreign agents is going to be very difficult. Proving that anybody within the current Russian government ordered it or signed off on it even more so.

And again we come back to bumbling Boris' careless Putin accusation! We still have no such proof. Theresa May can stand up in Parliament and say that the Russian government are responsible, but that is only an assumption. A pretty dangerous one at that.

It is still far from implausible that this was perpetrated by citizens working for a third party. A grudge from persons unknown relating to something Skripal either did or knows from his time in Russian military intelligence. He was working in Afghanistan in the 80s, who knows what that actually involved. It is still distinctly possible that somebody holding a grudge from that era is responsible for this. An individual who either always was, or at this point now is a private citizen.

To say 'Putin did this' is utterly half-cocked, inflammatory and ill-thought-through. There is simply no proof of it. Nor are we ever likely to gather much in the way of evidence to support it.

To have jumped straight off to attack Russia over this, in this manner, is a gigantic cock-up in my opinion and it will blow up in the British government's faces. It would have been far more sensible to have waited until now, with actual suspects, to ask for Russia's cooperation in trying to find these men. Making dramatic accusations without a shred of proof does more damage than it does good.

An absolutley superb post and one which neatly summarises where I'm currently at with this one.

I have been very reluctant to wade into this fraught issue for two reasons: One is that many of you will know by now that I live and work in Russia for much of the time. It is therefore difficult for me to pronounce on this without people sussing out that I'm a spy people assuming that I'm speaking with some vested interest behind my words, whether it be emotional or professional.

The second reason is that I have always had a real downer on conspiracy theories - prefering cock up as an explanation than conspiracy every time -and, as Mr Anticonpiracist, I don't want to blot my copybook on this now.

But to address those two points: The institution I work for - a language school - is (implicitly) pro-international co-operation between Russia and the rest of the world, and so my job hardly requires me to promote Putin
's nationalist agenda - somewhat to the contrary, in fact. Nor am I subject to that much Russian state propaganda. My Russian language level is such that newcasts are quite difficult for me to follow. Also there is an unwritten rule in our teaching that we don't (usually) discuss politics with our students - so I don't get much from them in that line either.

As regards prefering cock-up to conspiracy - well you could argue that the official governmnet position here is the conspiracy theory one! A `cock up` position would just be that two rogue agents made a botched assasination attempt on two people who they had a grudge against - nothing more.

There has just been something `off` about this whole news event ever since it started. Zebra said above somewhere that it has an air of a narrative that's being made up as it goes along, and indeed it does feel that way for me.

So for example: first we were told that poor Charlie took the perfume bottle from a bin. Now the bin has suddenly become a charity bin - quite a different proposition. So not only has Charlie morphed from being a decent recycler to the kind of blackguard who would steal from charity* but there is also the question of just how one would take something from a charity bin (the charity bins that I know of are constructed in such a way as to be impossible to extract anything from once a deposit has been made).

Then there's the way (noted by Cochise above) in which the story keps flaring up and dying down again. It ought to be up there with...say 9/11 almost - but this week, for example, it has been eclipsed by the astonishing revelation that Boris Johnson has been involved in marital infidelities (I mean, is that even news!?)

The there's the oddly relaxed attitude to our allies in all of this. If the official narrative is all correct then our allies would be in the firirng line too and would - surely- be offering all help, tea and sympathy, and shoulder to shoulder-type stuff. Instead both the French and German governments are making placatory noises to the Kremlin and Washington...well...

So all we really know is that two British people have been victims of a chemical agent used in Britainn - and that there is some evidence that two people of Russian origin may have been involved.

Please, though, let's not be beastly to the Russians until we have all the facts, that's all!

Feel free to show me where I'm wrong-I'm seriously open to persuasion on this one. But I want to leave you with a clip from Eamon Holmes interviewing a former Kremlin adviser about this. (Not endorsing anything - just putting it out there).



* I am NOT, in any way shape or form suggesting that Charlie `got what he deserved`. In fact he is the person that I feel most for in this whole situation - and I wish him a swift and full recovery.
 
Feel free to show me where I'm wrong-I'm seriously open to persuasion on this one. But I want to leave you with a clip from Eamon Holmes interviewing a former Kremlin adviser about this. (Not endorsing anything - just putting it out there).

He sounds reasonable and genuine, yes. But he's probably no longer privy to the real machinations of the Russian state.
However, I am also of the opinion that this whole thing seems to be made up as time goes by. Or is it just that the MSM journalism is now so poor that we are getting garbled, inconsistent and incomplete versions of events? That would certainly give us the impression that someone is making it all up.
 
So for example: first we were told that poor Charlie took the perfume bottle from a bin. Now the bin has suddenly become a charity bin - quite a different proposition. So not only has Charlie morphed from being a decent recycler to the kind of blackguard who would steal from charity* but there is also the question of just how one would take something from a charity bin (the charity bins that I know of are constructed in such a way as to be impossible to extract anything from once a deposit has been made).


The Times terms it as "a wheelie bin behind a charity shop" which is not the same thing as a charity bin. Where did you hear it was a charity bin? The Times is paywalled but here is the link anyway.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...sing-fake-nina-ricci-perfume-bottle-x7j2txrgl
 
The Times terms it as "a wheelie bin behind a charity shop" which is not the same thing as a charity bin. Where did you hear it was a charity bin? The Times is paywalled but here is the link anyway.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...sing-fake-nina-ricci-perfume-bottle-x7j2txrgl

Good point. I thought I'd read it somewhere but now I'm wondering if I had.

In any case the `charity bin` part of the story is out in the `public domain` nevertheless. I know this because two other ex-pat colleagues and myself were earnestly discussing how and why somebody could and would steal from a charity bin only last night (in connection with this case).

The conversation was not initiated by me (in fact somebody had to explain to me what exactly a `charity bin` was!)

Perhaps this is how `Mandela effects` start?

None of which, in any case, alters the gist of my original post.
 
An absolutley superb post and one which neatly summarises where I'm currently at with this one.

I have been very reluctant to wade into this fraught issue for two reasons: One is that many of you will know by now that I live and work in Russia for much of the time. It is therefore difficult for me to pronounce on this without people sussing out that I'm a spy people assuming that I'm speaking with some vested interest behind my words, whether it be emotional or professional.

The second reason is that I have always had a real downer on conspiracy theories - prefering cock up as an explanation than conspiracy every time -and, as Mr Anticonpiracist, I don't want to blot my copybook on this now.

But to address those two points: The institution I work for - a language school - is (implicitly) pro-international co-operation between Russia and the rest of the world, and so my job hardly requires me to promote Putin
's nationalist agenda - somewhat to the contrary, in fact. Nor am I subject to that much Russian state propaganda. My Russian language level is such that newcasts are quite difficult for me to follow. Also there is an unwritten rule in our teaching that we don't (usually) discuss politics with our students - so I don't get much from them in that line either.

As regards prefering cock-up to conspiracy - well you could argue that the official governmnet position here is the conspiracy theory one! A `cock up` position would just be that two rogue agents made a botched assasination attempt on two people who they had a grudge against - nothing more.

There has just been something `off` about this whole news event ever since it started. Zebra said above somewhere that it has an air of a narrative that's being made up as it goes along, and indeed it does feel that way for me.

So for example: first we were told that poor Charlie took the perfume bottle from a bin. Now the bin has suddenly become a charity bin - quite a different proposition. So not only has Charlie morphed from being a decent recycler to the kind of blackguard who would steal from charity* but there is also the question of just how one would take something from a charity bin (the charity bins that I know of are constructed in such a way as to be impossible to extract anything from once a deposit has been made).

Then there's the way (noted by Cochise above) in which the story keps flaring up and dying down again. It ought to be up there with...say 9/11 almost - but this week, for example, it has been eclipsed by the astonishing revelation that Boris Johnson has been involved in marital infidelities (I mean, is that even news!?)

The there's the oddly relaxed attitude to our allies in all of this. If the official narrative is all correct then our allies would be in the firirng line too and would - surely- be offering all help, tea and sympathy, and shoulder to shoulder-type stuff. Instead both the French and German governments are making placatory noises to the Kremlin and Washington...well...

So all we really know is that two British people have been victims of a chemical agent used in Britainn - and that there is some evidence that two people of Russian origin may have been involved.

Please, though, let's not be beastly to the Russians until we have all the facts, that's all!

Feel free to show me where I'm wrong-I'm seriously open to persuasion on this one. But I want to leave you with a clip from Eamon Holmes interviewing a former Kremlin adviser about this. (Not endorsing anything - just putting it out there).



* I am NOT, in any way shape or form suggesting that Charlie `got what he deserved`. In fact he is the person that I feel most for in this whole situation - and I wish him a swift and full recovery.


Thanks for posting that up, Zeke. A very rational interview, and it does raise some very good points.

If these were officers military intelligence officers they basically cocked this up spectacularly - doing the kind of things which every training manual in the book would have told them NOT to do.

  • Leaving an easily traceable trail through CCTV cameras, which they made no effort whatsoever to dodge or to shield their likenesses from.
  • Flying in from Moscow and flying back to Moscow. Not disguising their journey by using other Countries or breaking up that journey in ways which would have made it more difficult to trace. They might as well have been wearing a badge saying 'I work in the Kremlin. Ask me how!' at that point.
  • Using a nerve agent in a fashion which did not guarantee infection from contact, and was prone to the possibility of a messy fallout from the off. Not to mention that they picked a toxin with an obviously Russian name. Yes, a dozen other countries do have Novichok on file, could produce and weaponise it - but again why pick something so obvious as to all but scream 'RUSSIAN' to people?
  • As stated in that interview if you are an agent OF your Country the one most essential thing is to operate without drawing attention TO your Country. At every turn these guys are signalling Russian involvement. If they are working with the backing of their Nation they are doing a spectacularly poor job.

And seriously, in terms of disposal of evidence dropping it into a charity bin seems a little bizarre. Why would you do that? Why would you not aim to destroy the evidence?

As I've said previously I could see this of organised crime, of sending a message to somebody who knew exactly what it meant. I could plausibly see this of rogue agents who have contempt for the Russian state. But I just cannot resolve it as ever plausibly being an official operation on behalf of the Russian Government. Because if it is it's a shockingly unprofessional, badly run op.
 
Last edited:
Putin says he's found the two Novichok suspects, that they are civilians and they will tell their story soon.
Interesting development.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45494627


"We know who they are, we have found them," Mr Putin said in the far eastern city of Vladivostok.

"I hope they will turn up themselves and tell everything. This would be best for everyone. There is nothing special there, nothing criminal, I assure you. We'll see in the near future," he added.

Granted, assurances from Mr Putin should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

Not criminals. Not GRU. But just Civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time? It does seem unlikely. I think we'll all be interested in hearing their Story, though.
 
[QUOTE="CuriousIdent, post: 1783481,
  • Leaving an easily traceable trail through CCTV cameras, which they made no effort whatsoever to dodge or to shield their likenesses from.
  • Flying in from Moscow and flying back to Moscow. Not disguising their journey by using other Countries or breaking up that journey in ways which would have made it more difficult to trace. They might as well have been wearing a badge saying 'I work in the Kremlin. Ask me how!' at that point.[/QUOTE]
are you acquainted with the word decoy? ;)

Wm.
 
First of all, humour aside, I do feel sorry for Charlie Rowley and I hope he can recover.


So, on the latest episode of "Novichok Street" we apparently have the following.

* Two suspects identified and followed just about everywhere from the moment they arrived in the UK until the moment they left. (Yet, in the words of Mr Zebra, "we can't find a guy who disappeared in Bury St Edmunds on CCTV but they can apparently track these people everywhere")

* These men sprayed the perfume on the door handle then put the bottle back neatly into its packaging all without getting a single drop on themselves (unless they ducked out of sight of the CCTV, donned some hazmat suits, did the dirty deed then got changed again before the next camera spotted them)

* The perfume bottle was then deposited in a bin in a park, which might have been a charity bin (was this only mentioned once they noticed it was too unrealistic to have been in a normal bin for all that time?)

* There are traces of the poison in a hotel room in London yet nobody who either works there or has stayed there in the several months since the incident, have become unwell.

* And we cannot forget, of course, Our Great Leader Theresa May's speech in the House Of Commons, which went like this:
(solemn voice) "I can today tell the House, that based on a body of evidence," (slightly more dramatic voice) "that the Government has concluded," (even more dramatic voice) "that the two individuals named by the police and CPS," (slight pause followed by Best Dramatic Voice Ever) "are officers of the Russian. Secret. Intelligence. Service."


I think you all know my thoughts on this farce incident by now, but to sum it up I offer this short video:

 
are you acquainted with the word decoy? ;)


Yeah. But if that were the case, and Russia continue to deny that we're talking about anything other than civilians visiting Salisbury, it is up to British Military Intelligence, the police and the government to prove it. To find evidence to prove such a thing.
 
So, on the latest episode of "Novichok Street" we apparently have the following.


It's really getting that way, isn't it? :)


* Two suspects identified and followed just about everywhere from the moment they arrived in the UK until the moment they left. (Yet, in the words of Mr Zebra, "we can't find a guy who disappeared in Bury St Edmunds on CCTV but they can apparently track these people everywhere")

Exactly. These guys have to be among the most suspicious acting, easily tracked, regularly photographed suspects ever in an inquiry of this kind. Which is either grossly incompetent of them, a Red Herring, or simply that they *aren't* Russian GRU agents.



* These men sprayed the perfume on the door handle then put the bottle back neatly into its packaging all without getting a single drop on themselves (unless they ducked out of sight of the CCTV, donned some hazmat suits, did the dirty deed then got changed again before the next camera spotted them)

Yes! That really is worth noting. If this stuff is as potent as we are led to believe then even the notion of their being in the same clothing after the event seems highly unlikely. You wouldn't risk it.



* The perfume bottle was then deposited in a bin in a park, which might have been a charity bin (was this only mentioned once they noticed it was too unrealistic to have been in a normal bin for all that time?)

Yeah. That part of the story is still vague as all hell. It's the bit they move on from so quickly in every news report, because it really does not stand up to scrutiny at all. Huge lack of detail going on there.



* There are traces of the poison in a hotel room in London yet nobody who either works there or has stayed there in the several months since the incident, have become unwell.

Yes. Even small traces would - you would expect - be potent enough to have raised some kind symptoms in others who had entered that room.



* And we cannot forget, of course, Our Great Leader Theresa May's speech in the House Of Commons, which went like this:
(solemn voice) "I can today tell the House, that based on a body of evidence," (slightly more dramatic voice) "that the Government has concluded," (even more dramatic voice) "that the two individuals named by the police and CPS," (slight pause followed by Best Dramatic Voice Ever) "are officers of the Russian. Secret. Intelligence. Service."

May remains, as always, a terrible actor. It is very difficult to buy into what she says, purely because she has such a long established history of bending the rules (and bending the truth) in order to get what she wants.

I am always deeply suspicious of any politician who addresses a situation like this by stating things as solid fact rather than 'At this time we believe...' or 'At this time the evidence we have suggests to us that...'. Stating assumptive personal conclusion as FACT is misleading Parliament. Nobody will call her out on it. But it is misleading.
 
worth a look at the photos so far
please observe time lines , clothes etc
 

Attachments

  • 180913113213-03-salisbury-suspects-petrov-boshirov-cctv-exlarge-169.jpg
    180913113213-03-salisbury-suspects-petrov-boshirov-cctv-exlarge-169.jpg
    74.8 KB · Views: 19
  • nintchdbpict000390245711.jpg
    nintchdbpict000390245711.jpg
    100.7 KB · Views: 16
  • NINTCHDBPICT000431230426-e1536144331657.jpg
    NINTCHDBPICT000431230426-e1536144331657.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 17
  • NINTCHDBPICT000431230476-e1536144398244.jpg
    NINTCHDBPICT000431230476-e1536144398244.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 18
  • NINTCHDBPICT0004312304271-e1536145593972.jpg
    NINTCHDBPICT0004312304271-e1536145593972.jpg
    100.4 KB · Views: 19
  • NINTCHDBPICT0004312304402.jpg
    NINTCHDBPICT0004312304402.jpg
    94.2 KB · Views: 17
  • NINTCHDBPICT0004312304861.jpg
    NINTCHDBPICT0004312304861.jpg
    52.9 KB · Views: 17
  • saffdfdsfdsf.jpg
    saffdfdsfdsf.jpg
    281.5 KB · Views: 19
From the suspects' statement:

We arrived in Salisbury on March 3 and tried to walk through the town, but we lasted for only half an hour because it was covered in snow.

"Of course, we went there to see Stonehenge, Old Sarum, but we couldn't do it because there was muddy slush everywhere. The town was covered by this slush. We got wet, took the nearest train and came back (to London)."

Source:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/13/europe/russia-uk-skripal-poisoning-suspects-intl/index.html

Russians: famously unable to cope with snow and... erm.. slush.

Really bad slush. Loads of it, there was. All... slushy.
 
beard density and length issues ?
not to mention serious weight loss over a 24 hour period
 
How many casual hats do you take on holiday?

Mine number varies between zero and one.

They both have at least two--and the non-bearded chap has two beanies (or bought additional ones).

That seems excessive.
 
The fact that they say Salisbury is a wonderful town makes me more suspicious.

I've never been there, but I watched a video of a chap walking around some ruins in Old Sarum and it looked interesting.

Is it actually a hole with historic parts?
 
Guessing no one sees anything odd about all this ?
Mass Media does its thing again !!
Is everyone getting a new IPhone next month ?
 
Back
Top